The Church of England has Just Fallen Into Apostasy!

[Pyreaux]

By that provocative title, I mean there is a "de facto" schism in the Anglican Communion, which is a decentralized fellowship. The Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (GAFCON), a movement of conservative provinces, largely from the Global South (basically Africa, with some conservative groups in North America, South America and Australia), who oppose the more liberal stances adopted by some Western provinces. Namely the Church of England, due to its decision to allow blessings for same-sex couples, but also any others with alternative theological interpretations particularly regarding human sexuality, the ordination of women and same-sex marriage.

GAFCON has gone DEFCON-4, that is it has effectively declared a break from the traditional structure of the Anglican Communion and rejection of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Instruments of Communion. This is a major institutional fracture of the worldwide church. They have announced it no longer recognizes the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury as the spiritual head (or "first among equals") for its provinces. GAFCON has stated it is "re-ordering" the Anglican Communion and refers to itself as the "Global Anglican Communion," with plans to elect its own new "first among equals." GAFCON asserts that they are the "true" Anglican Communion and that the liberal provinces are the ones who have departed from historic, orthodox faith.

The worldwide Anglican Communion was estimated to have 85 to 110 million members across its autonomous national and regional churches (called provinces). GAFCON and its leadership claims to represent the majority of the world's Anglicans. While the provinces that remain in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury includes the Church of England, The Episcopal Church (USA), and the Anglican Church of Canada represent the other portion.

The overall population of Anglicans is shifting to the Global South, meaning the majority of the world's active Anglicans are in provinces aligned with the conservative GAFCON position. That means the schism involves tens of millions of people and numerous provinces (churches) worldwide, with the two sides disputing which one represents the true majority of active Anglicans.

An Apostasy

GAFCON leaders frequently use the terms "apostasy" and "heresy" to describe the theological shifts in Western provinces of The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, and the Church of England. It has condemned a motion by the Church of England as, quote, "dragging the Church into apostasy", a "false Gospel" or a "different gospel" that is "humanist, rather than theological."

In GAFCON's view, the actions of the liberal provinces are not merely "secondary issues" or a matter of "good disagreement," but a betrayal of the foundation of the Christian faith, which puts them outside of orthodox Christianity. "We have not left the Anglican Communion; we are the Anglican Communion." They see themselves as the faithful remnant upholding the historic, biblical Anglican faith. While the "revisionists" (the liberal provinces) departed from the faith and doctrine that historically defined the Communion.

The Great Apostasy

Now before anyone take sides and gets caught up in their issues, as Latter-day Saints, whether GAFCON or the liberal provinces are "correct" on these specific issues is actually, secondary. Because the more profound issue is that the entire body lacks the foundation of a true divine authority, a living prophet, to receive God's current will. The ongoing apostasy within the Anglican Communion is neither new or surprising, but rather a symptom and continuation of the Great Apostasy long before this.

Apostasy is evident in the inability of the various Anglican factions to reach a unified, authoritative decision. It is evident that none of the parties actually have the divine authority or continuous revelation necessary to settle problems. When you rely only on interpretations of the Bible, rather than revelation, conflict and division are inevitable. The debate itself over biblical literalism or the authority of church leaders are simply examples of the doctrinal confusion and apostasy that has characterized the post-Apostolic Christian world.

A unifying head, a Prophet and continuous revelation is the most critical safeguard to apostasy. An entire Church body should be united under its leadership, one which is believed to be chosen and directed by God. Any dissenting group that forms a schism is, by definition, an apostate body because they have rejected the single, divinely authorized source of priesthood keys and continuous revelation, thereby it repeats the very error of the Great Apostasy.

https://baptistnews.com/article/a-house-divided-the-anglican-communions-great-reset/

https://dailydeclaration.org.au/2025/10/17/gafcon-canterbury-split/

https://www.premierchristianity.com/news-analysis/explained-has-gafcon-just-split-from-the-anglican-communion/20292.article

Edited October 21, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

A unifying head, a Prophet and continuous revelation is the most critical safeguard to apostasy. An entire Church body should be united under its leadership, one which is believed to be chosen and directed by God. Any dissenting group that forms a schism is, by definition, an apostate body because they have rejected the single, divinely authorized source of priesthood keys and continuous revelation, thereby it repeats the very error of the Great Apostasy.

I agree.

Am curious as to how you would respond to people pointing to the Community of Christ and other schisms (don’t see any others besides CoC as successful enough in growth to merit consideration as having authority and guidance from God as I believe this should be a time of growth, reaching out to the world) as evidence that the Restored Gospel lacks authority using the same argument.

My response is faith based on my personal experiences plus the doctrine is the most logically satisfying I know at this time even with its gaps, but I suspect there are Anglicans and others who view their chosen faith in the same way, so my response really only works from a personal angle. 

Edited October 21, 2025 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I agree.

Am curious as to how you would respond to people pointing to the Community of Christ and other schisms (don’t see any others besides CoC as successful enough in growth to merit consideration as having authority and guidance from God as I believe this should be a time of growth, reaching out to the world) as evidence that the Restored Gospel lacks authority using the same argument.

My response is faith based on my personal experiences plus the doctrine is the most logically satisfying I know at this time even with its gaps, but I suspect there are Anglicans and others who view their chosen faith in the same way, so my response really only works from a personal angle. 

Simple, the Post-Joseph Smith schisms all in their own way ultimately fail to follow the very principles I stated. They all rejected the already divinely established system and refused to accept new revelation that altered previous practices. That is a failure to follow the established line of divine authority. The church did not disband with the death of one man, they know Apostles still existed, and they were clearly led by Brigham Young.

They clearly all chose to reject the succession just to freeze the Church at a certain historical point. This is the same error that the rest of Christianity already suffers from, and Mormonism is supposed to solve. The consistency is found in the need to follow a living gospel over the dead letter of the law. To me these groups demonstrate the natural process of apostasy and disorganization that occurs when people refuse to yield to the authority of new revelation. All of this is beside playing the card that the LDS Church was promised to be a continuation of the Lord's kingdom that will never again be taken from the earth.

Edited October 21, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

they were clearly led by Brigham Young

I wonder how clear it actually was. (Not saying it wasn’t crystal clear, I am just not certain we can be certain it was even with the testimonies of Brigham’s transformation.)

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I wonder how clear it actually was. (Not saying it wasn’t crystal clear, I am just not certain we can be certain it was even with the testimonies of Brigham’s transformation.)

All members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles who were present in Nauvoo on August 8, 1844 sustained their quorum's role in leading the Church, which was then under the direction of their undisputed Quorum President, Brigham Young, whether or not he Transfigured.

William Smith, John E. Page, Lyman Wight, were not there, away on missions. John E. Page thought it was James J. Strang, who claimed to have a letter of appointment from Joseph Smith. That choice was brief. William Smith first said he should lead because he was a Smith, then James J. Strang, briefly, then RLDS. Lyman Wight also thought it should be a Smith, became RLDS, but left fulfilling what he believed was Joseph Smith's explicit last order for him to lead a colony to Texas, but the Wightites dissolved when he died. So, clearly, every alternative to Brigham, I'm basing this on their exit from it, they would say was wrong at that time.

Edited October 22, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

So, clearly, every alternative opinion to Brigham at that time, I'm basing on their exit from it, they would say was wrong.

But that doesn’t logically mean he was right. All of the options that were presented, considered as far as I know might have been wrong logically speaking.

I personally think he was the correct choice and I think the way the succession played out eventually is correct, but it seems like even Brigham tried to use the process for his family’s destiny, if not benefit, because he ordain his sons as apostles so young.  But Brigham had set a precedent for President Snow to do so for Brigham’s sons when Brigham had refined the standard of seniority, imo, removing those he had probable concerns about as possible successors to himself, Orson Hyde and Pratt.   Brigham claimed Pratt preached false doctrine at times, but Pratt ended up more mainstream in some ways in the end than Brigham.  I think the Church would have had a different culture, more inclined towards theological and philosophical discussions as well as more diverse if it was total time or original ordination date rather than readmission date that determined seniority.  Him being a mathematician appeals to me greatly (if I had ever managed to get my doctorate, it would have been in math most likely…first and last love).

And if one looks at the outcome as proving the choice correct, depending on how one chose to weight what was most important, some might say history proves Brother Pratt might have been a better choice (I have no idea how good a leader he was or the totality of his ideas, but I suspect we would not have had the Priesthood Ban) 

Which is all to say I don’t see the level of obvious certainty that you apparently do.  I think it depends too greatly on where one is standing. 

Edited October 22, 2025 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

But that doesn’t logically mean he was right. All of the options that were presented, considered as far as I know might have been wrong logically speaking.

I personally think he was the correct choice and I think the way the succession played out eventually is correct, but it seems like even Brigham tried to use the process for his family’s destiny, if not benefit, because he ordain his sons as apostles so young.  But Brigham had set a precedent for President Snow to do so for Brigham’s sons when Brigham had refined the standard of seniority, imo, removing those he had probable concerns about as possible successors to himself, Orson Hyde and Pratt.   Brigham claimed Pratt preached false doctrine at times, but Pratt ended up more mainstream in some ways in the end than Brigham.  I think the Church would have had a different culture, more inclined towards theological and philosophical discussions as well as more diverse if it was total time or original ordination date rather than readmission date that determined seniority.  Him being a mathematician appeals to me greatly (if I had ever managed to get my doctorate, it would have been in math most likely…first and last love).

And if one looks at the outcome as proving the choice correct, depending on how one chose to weight what was most important, some might say history proves Brother Pratt might have been a better choice (I have no idea how good a leader he was or the totality of his ideas, but I suspect we would not have had the Priesthood Ban) 

Which is all to say I don’t see the level of obvious certainty that you apparently do.  I think it depends too greatly on where one is standing. 

It's not just the outrageous presumption the majority of the Quorum of the Twelve and Church apostatized that required a restoration of the restoration, often in such lackluster fashion, and wallowing in obscurity, maybe that was just how it had to be. My biggest objection is the precedent they set. That they did not want to the gospel to change by revelation that seemed to contradict earlier teachings. If there ever was really Divine Authority on earth, this intolerance to change, this unwillingness to submit to it no matter what it said... has been the root of all apostasy, every time I can recall.

Edited October 22, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

t's not just the outrageous presumption the majority of the Quorum of the Twelve and Church apostatized that required a restoration of the restoration, often in such lackluster fashion, and wallowing in obscurity, maybe that was just how it had to be.

Even if Brigham was not the one the Lord wanted (pure thought experiment exploring the logic of arguments surrounding the succession as I don’t believe this is probable), I don’t see it as requiring a full apostasy of the 12 and the majority of the Church.  Not understanding and therefore not following God’s instructions accurately with the succession does not exclude the 12 and the majority of the Church following the instructions enough that God can eventually get the Church back fully on track.  If that was actually the case, I see it as likely given the poor performance and inconsistencies of the other options that God made the best with Brigham in building up a strong community and is nudging the Church closer to the ideal he desires in the ways each President is open to (which is how I see it happening with Brigham as the choice of God as well as the majority of the Church and with every President afterwards).

I am not sure if revelation requires if leadership did go off track enough for apostasy, a restoration of the restoration would be immediately required. I am not familiar enough with the scriptures themselves about these to be secure enough to speculate one way or the other.  I should probably study this more.

The way the Church has taught that these are the last days and the Church will never be taken from earth again does seem to indicate there had to be a continuation of authority somehow…and I very much agree with you that none who have made the claim of authority outside the Church of Latter-day Saints and the Community of Christ fit the scriptures to the best of my knowledge (the Church may not be that big in comparison to the population of the world in the last days teachings, but it must have the ability to be accessible to all and that seems to me limited to the top two size wise).  And given the significant changes in doctrinal understanding from what the CoC started with, ie the necessity the successor of Joseph, the leader of God’s Church be of Joseph’s posterity—it seems unlikely to me the CoC now qualifies as the one with continuous authority.  And since it appears continuous authority is a requirement of the last days Church (speaking of teachings I am assuming are correct, not scripture), that logically eliminates for me the CoC from ever being the authorized Church.

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

. My biggest objection is the precedent they set. That they did not want to the gospel to change by revelation that seemed to contradict earlier teachings. If there ever was really Divine Authority on earth, this intolerance to change, this unwillingness to submit to it no matter what it said...

Can you restate this please?  As it is, I am reading it as two different, contradictory statements.  I am sure I am missing something or assuming you mean something you don’t and hope my confusion can be easily cleared up with clarification.

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Can you restate this please?  As it is, I am reading it as two different, contradictory statements.  I am sure I am missing something or assuming you mean something you don’t and hope my confusion can be easily cleared up with clarification.

The primary sign of apostasy is the cessation of prophetic authority and direct revelation from God. These groups have entered a state of apostasy for the same reason everyone else has: they place a closed canon or a fixed tradition above the possibility of a new revelation or a contrary revelation.

The Deuteronomists

An Apostacy began because Deuteronomic editors and reformers place the covenant through the law above the living voice of a prophet. They'd kill any prophet that contradicted the law of Moses. They prioritized adherence to a written tradition over receiving an unwritten, fresh word from God, effectively setting a trajectory that would eventually resist and kill new prophets.

The Pharisees

The Pharisees built a dense body of oral and written tradition that became a barrier to accepting the new revelation of Jesus Christ that was contradicting the law. They rigidly adhered to the complex interpretations and traditions of the Torah rather than acknowledging the Savior's authority as a living Prophet. Their focus on the letter of the law blinded them to the new spiritual realities being offered.

The Catholics

The Dark Ages, was pure stagnation, where for centuries nothing improved nor declined. Yet evey thing was as they desired. The church was united, the afterlife was a certainty, all knowledge was already known, and nothing would ever change. Until the Black Plague swept over it, and the Reformation came forth.

The Protestants

But the Protestant Reformation failed to complete the restoration because it stopped short of re-establishing living prophets and continuous revelation. So now Protestants reject new revelations based on sola scriptura ("scripture alone"), effectively declaring the biblical canon closed. By asserting that divine authority and revelation ended with the original apostles. Nothing new can contradict it.

The RLDS/FLDS

They've rejected the revelation and changes as practiced by the main LDS Church in order to maintain a specific, frozen doctrine. The early RLDS Church formed specifically to "purify" the Restoration by returning to what they saw as the original, uncorrupted doctrines of the 1830s and early 1840s, right before Joseph Smith's death. The FLDS and other groups are a mirror image of the RLDS, they are just freezing a later point in the main Church's history.

The failure to accept new revelation is the root of apostasy because it constitutes a rejection of God's continuing authority to direct His Church. They didn't reject the Brigham because he didn't have a solid claim to leadership, they rejected him because he's new revelations were unacceptable. It's not a good enough reason, you can't lock the gospel into stasis.

Edited October 22, 2025 by Pyreaux

[the narrator]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

I wonder how clear it actually was. (Not saying it wasn’t crystal clear, I am just not certain we can be certain it was even with the testimonies of Brigham’s transformation.)

It wasn't clear at all, which is why Brigham and pals likely fabricated the so-called "final charge" to make a claim of succession that wasn't at all clear. (And I would argue that the most crucial succession debate wasn't between Young and Rigdon (or even Strang) but rather between Young and Emma Smith.

[the narrator]

16 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

They all rejected the already divinely established system

And what system was that?

[the narrator]

9 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

The primary sign of apostasy is the cessation of prophetic authority and direct revelation from God.

Your repeated claim of a church/religion/etc requiring a prophet at the lead is absurd given the primary role of prophets in the Bible and Book of Mormon, where prophets usually exist outside of the institution and have a role in criticizing the institution and are criticized for not having institutional authority.

Edited October 22, 2025 by the narrator

[manol]

11 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

The primary sign of apostasy is the cessation of prophetic authority and direct revelation from God. These groups have entered a state of apostasy for the same reason everyone else has: they place a closed canon or a fixed tradition above the possibility of a new revelation or a contrary revelation.

How open is your canon?   I mean you personally, not the LDS Church.   Are you truly open to "the possibility of a new revelation or a contradictory revelation" that comes from outside of the LDS Church's "tradition"? 

Are you open to the possibility that "all that God does now reveal" includes revelation through sources other than the leadership of the LDS Church (see 2nd Nephi 29:11)? 

And if so, how would you recognize something originating outside the LDS Church as deserving a place in your canon?  

Edited October 22, 2025 by manol

[Pyreaux]

5 hours ago, the narrator said:

Your repeated claim of a church/religion/etc requiring a prophet at the lead is absurd given the primary role of prophets in the Bible and Book of Mormon, where prophets usually exist outside of the institution and have a role in criticizing the institution and are criticized for not having institutional authority.

The problem with the claim that prophets are often against the established institutions is it ignores they establish institutions. A prophet is not meant to be perpetually outside the central covenant structure; they were divinely appointed to lead it. The ideal Prophetic figures; Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and Nephi were all prophets who were also the leaders or primary religious authorities of their people. They were the institution.

Christ organized His Church, He put Apostles and Prophets at the head as the central governing body of the Church. The need for a prophet to be the central leader is precisely to ensure the institution has a means of correction.

Prophets like Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Abinadi were outside the current ruling establishment was because those establishments had already fallen into a state of apostasy. They weren't apostate for being institutions.

The absurdity is not the requirement of a prophet, but the belief that a divine institution can function properly without one. The very concept of a Great Apostasy in LDS theology is rooted in the belief that when Apostles and Prophets ceased to exist among them, the institution lost its governing and correcting authority. Therefore, the absence of a prophet at the lead is the fundamental cause of all long-term doctrinal error and institutional decay. The requirement for a prophet is the safeguard against the very corruption you claim prophets are supposed to fight.

2 hours ago, manol said:

How open is your canon?   I mean you personally, not the LDS Church.   Are you truly open to "the possibility of a new revelation or a contradictory revelation" that comes from outside of the LDS Church's "tradition"? 

Are you open to the possibility that "all that God does now reveal" includes revelation through sources other than the leadership of the LDS Church (see 2nd Nephi 29:11)? 

And if so, how would you recognize something originating outside the LDS Church as deserving a place in your canon?  

Extremely open. I do not dismiss The Quran or The Diamond Sutra, especially if the Brethren were so inclined to add them. I am put off by some things. I think I despise the Book of Urantia. I too have my traditional sacred cows. Temples. I got to have them. I will resist an outside voice telling me there is only a heavenly temple or something like that.

Edited October 22, 2025 by Pyreaux

[JVW]

On 10/21/2025 at 4:44 PM, Pyreaux said:

By that provocative title, I mean there is a "de facto" schism in the Anglican Communion, which is a decentralized fellowship. The Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (GAFCON), a movement of conservative provinces, largely from the Global South (basically Africa, with some conservative groups in North America, South America and Australia), who oppose the more liberal stances adopted by some Western provinces. Namely the Church of England, due to its decision to allow blessings for same-sex couples, but also any others with alternative theological interpretations particularly regarding human sexuality, the ordination of women and same-sex marriage.

GAFCON has gone DEFCON-4, that is it has effectively declared a break from the traditional structure of the Anglican Communion and rejection of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Instruments of Communion. This is a major institutional fracture of the worldwide church. They have announced it no longer recognizes the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury as the spiritual head (or "first among equals") for its provinces. GAFCON has stated it is "re-ordering" the Anglican Communion and refers to itself as the "Global Anglican Communion," with plans to elect its own new "first among equals." GAFCON asserts that they are the "true" Anglican Communion and that the liberal provinces are the ones who have departed from historic, orthodox faith.

The worldwide Anglican Communion was estimated to have 85 to 110 million members across its autonomous national and regional churches (called provinces). GAFCON and its leadership claims to represent the majority of the world's Anglicans. While the provinces that remain in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury includes the Church of England, The Episcopal Church (USA), and the Anglican Church of Canada represent the other portion.

The overall population of Anglicans is shifting to the Global South, meaning the majority of the world's active Anglicans are in provinces aligned with the conservative GAFCON position. That means the schism involves tens of millions of people and numerous provinces (churches) worldwide, with the two sides disputing which one represents the true majority of active Anglicans.

An Apostasy

GAFCON leaders frequently use the terms "apostasy" and "heresy" to describe the theological shifts in Western provinces of The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, and the Church of England. It has condemned a motion by the Church of England as, quote, "dragging the Church into apostasy", a "false Gospel" or a "different gospel" that is "humanist, rather than theological."

In GAFCON's view, the actions of the liberal provinces are not merely "secondary issues" or a matter of "good disagreement," but a betrayal of the foundation of the Christian faith, which puts them outside of orthodox Christianity. "We have not left the Anglican Communion; we are the Anglican Communion." They see themselves as the faithful remnant upholding the historic, biblical Anglican faith. While the "revisionists" (the liberal provinces) departed from the faith and doctrine that historically defined the Communion.

The Great Apostasy

Now before anyone take sides and gets caught up in their issues, as Latter-day Saints, whether GAFCON or the liberal provinces are "correct" on these specific issues is actually, secondary. Because the more profound issue is that the entire body lacks the foundation of a true divine authority, a living prophet, to receive God's current will. The ongoing apostasy within the Anglican Communion is neither new or surprising, but rather a symptom and continuation of the Great Apostasy long before this.

Apostasy is evident in the inability of the various Anglican factions to reach a unified, authoritative decision. It is evident that none of the parties actually have the divine authority or continuous revelation necessary to settle problems. When you rely only on interpretations of the Bible, rather than revelation, conflict and division are inevitable. The debate itself over biblical literalism or the authority of church leaders are simply examples of the doctrinal confusion and apostasy that has characterized the post-Apostolic Christian world.

A unifying head, a Prophet and continuous revelation is the most critical safeguard to apostasy. An entire Church body should be united under its leadership, one which is believed to be chosen and directed by God. Any dissenting group that forms a schism is, by definition, an apostate body because they have rejected the single, divinely authorized source of priesthood keys and continuous revelation, thereby it repeats the very error of the Great Apostasy.

https://baptistnews.com/article/a-house-divided-the-anglican-communions-great-reset/

https://dailydeclaration.org.au/2025/10/17/gafcon-canterbury-split/

https://www.premierchristianity.com/news-analysis/explained-has-gafcon-just-split-from-the-anglican-communion/20292.article

I saw a really good video about this by a channel called "The Great Harvest" or something like that on YouTube. The guy is basically a "Christian politics" commentator and very good at what he does. From what I understand the root document that GAFCON points to is the 2008 Jerusalem document which was basically like the Anglican version of the Family Proclamation. Their official statement is very sharp. They will not have any of their [whatever their word for is] congregations giving any money to the Archbishop Anglican sect. And they will not accept any money from that sect. They even are willing to allow churches in other areas that aren't GAFCON to get redistricted into their own.

I'm curious what this means for how they view the English Monarchy, and how their new governing body will function. Presumably it will function like the old one, but will they get recognition from the King, and isn't the King a key figure in Anglicanism because the King is the head of the Church instead of the pope?

Edited October 22, 2025 by JVW
Whatever the fallout may be, this is truly a historical event!

[the narrator]

31 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

The ideal Prophetic figures; Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and Nephi were all prophets who were also the leaders or primary religious authorities of their people.

Those were exceptions were hardly the rule. For most of Israelite history, the prophet, priest, and king were distinct roles, with the former almost always called from outside any institutional authority to criticize the ruling classes of priest and king. In fact, this prophetic role was precisely the one Jesus was filling when he appealed to and shared the role of Jeremiah criticizing the temple priests for turning the temple into a den of thieves.

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

Those were exceptions were hardly the rule. For most of Israelite history, the prophet, priest, and king were distinct roles, with the former almost always called from outside any institutional authority to criticize the ruling classes of priest and king. In fact, this prophetic role was precisely the one Jesus was filling when he appealed to and shared the role of Jeremiah criticizing the temple priests for turning the temple into a den of thieves.

They were not exceptions; they were the ideal. Moses' delegation of responsibilities separated prophet, priest, and king, but he himself was all those things. The divine ideal has always been the union of these roles in a single individual. A Melchizedek Priest encompasses all three functions. Melchizedek himself was "King" and "Priest". The covenant of Abraham was one of eternal kingship and priesthood. The ideal king was the anointed with the priestly oil and ideally became a prophet and performed priestly functions.

Priesthood Authority is valid until transferred or revoked and then there is righteous direction which only a prophet can provide. When Jesus told the leper to go to the priests, He was recognizing that they still held the legal, institutional Priesthood authority to perform the ritual required under the Law of Moses. The authority was technically valid, even if the men holding it were wicked.

Jesus recognized their legal authority but did not recognize their righteousness or correct doctrinal direction. His criticism of turning the temple into a "den of thieves" was a call to repentance against their unacceptable conduct, not a denial of their official standing. When James instructed Paul to submit to the Temple priests' cleansing ritual honored the continuing legal status of the Levitical priests.

The entire prophetic history shows that a prophet is only outside the institution when the institution has ceased to be God's true institution. Your examples are not a rule but the consequence of institutional failure. A prophet only has to criticize the ruling classes when the ruling classes have lost the spirit of revelation. The prophet is the correction factor, a true Church is the one that keeps the Prophet at the head to break the cycle of apostasy.

[manol]

4 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Extremely open. I do not dismiss The Quran or The Diamond Sutra, especially if the Brethren were so inclined to add them. I am put off by some things. I think I despise the Book of Urantia.

I've not read any of those, but think it's great that your canon is “extremely open”. Imo God is at work revealing greater light and knowledge right now.

 

4 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I too have my traditional sacred cows. Temples. I got to have them. I will resist an outside voice telling me there is only a heavenly temple or something like that.

I can definitely see the utility of having a physical temple. I can also see utility in not needing a physical temple. Imo the presence of God is accessed by aligning our consciousness to God, whether or not a dedicated building and/or a formal ceremony is involved. 

 

Edited October 23, 2025 by manol

[the narrator]

16 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

The divine ideal has always been...

Well, I don't want to debate your personal theological and religious interpretations. I was just referring to the scriptures, where Moses, Samuel, and Nephi all received their prophetic calling outside of any institutional authority or apparatus. In fact, for Moses and Nephi the religious institutions that they led didn't even exist when they received their prophetic callings.

[Stargazer]

23 hours ago, JVW said:

'm curious what this means for how they view the English Monarchy, and how their new governing body will function. Presumably it will function like the old one, but will they get recognition from the King, and isn't the King a key figure in Anglicanism because the King is the head of the Church instead of the pope?

The King is the titular head of the church, but he doesn't really have a voice in it. He is constitutionally restricted to rubber-stamping whatever the current government decides to do. Probably the moment he rebels he will be side-lined even more than he is now. Especially since Labour is in power, and their traditional principle is egalitarianism and in their heart of hearts they want to see the monarchy abolished and whatever privileges remain with the Lords go down the drain with him.

Charles III has a very real, though figurative, Sword of Damocles hanging over his head. His predecessor Charles I literally lost his head over defying Parliament. I think the current monarch is well aware of how precarious his position is.

[The Nehor]

Did you mean DEFCON 2? DEFCON 4 is a relatively low level of readiness. That was the alert level the US went to when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Low level increase due to heightened tensions or activities.

I know this is a minor point but I am tired and pedantic right now.

[ZealouslyStriving]

On 10/22/2025 at 8:32 AM, the narrator said:

It wasn't clear at all, which is why Brigham and pals likely fabricated the so-called "final charge" to make a claim of succession that wasn't at all clear. (And I would argue that the most crucial succession debate wasn't between Young and Rigdon (or even Strang) but rather between Young and Emma Smith.

Can we please, for the love of all that is holy, lay to rest idea that Emma Smith started the RLDS Movement? 

Zenos Gurley and Jason Briggs were the principle instigators of the New Organization- finally, after several attempts by them to recruit him, and a supposed revelation to him, Joseph III jumped on board. Emma simply followed her sons into the movement. Initially, she really didn't want her sons getting involved because she feared the same fate for them as for her late husband.

Edited October 26, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Can we please, for the love of all that is holy, lay to rest idea that Emma Smith started the RLDS Movement? 

Zenos Gurley and Jason Briggs were the principle instigators of the New Organization- finally, after several attempts by them and a supposed revelation to him, Joseph III jumped on board. Emma simply followed her sons into the movement. Initially, she really didn't want her sons getting involved because she feared the same fate for them as for her late husband.

Perhaps the narrator was referring to William Marks, who Emma supported as successor.

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Can we please, for the love of all that is holy, lay to rest idea that Emma Smith started the RLDS Movement? 

Zenos Gurley and Jason Briggs were the principle instigators of the New Organization- finally, after several attempts by them to recruit him, and a supposed revelation to him, Joseph III jumped on board. Emma simply followed her sons into the movement. Initially, she really didn't want her sons getting involved because she feared the same fate for them as for her late husband.

Ugh I meant to edit 😕 

Edited October 26, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving